Hello Pascal, Authors, Thank you for this work. We had discussions before where the ability to register anycast/multicast addresses for 6LN nodes spanning RPL (or even non-RPL) network was missing. This work fulfills that requirement.
Following is my review of the draft: 1. storing MOP handling: Even though the draft mentions that storing MOP should also work, the details seem to be missing (or it might be an oversight on my side). Consider following instances (for storing MOP): a. in the case where multiple 6LNs subscribe to the same multicast address in the same DODAG, how will the intermediate 6LR handle this situation? Is it expected that the 6LR maintains state for all DAOs? Note that the DAOs may come from different paths when the parent switching happens and thus bloat the state. The only new thing added in the context is the 'M' flag in the RTO. The path-sequence, TID seems to be getting mandatorily ignored as per the text. b. How would the route cleanup happen for multicast/anycast addresses? >From non-storing mode perspective, I realize that it will be much easier handling since the DAO from the 6LR is directly targeted to the root and thus the root would be able to handle all the complexity. But the text seem to be loosely specified in the context of storing mode. For e.g., consider section 5.1 which talks about storing MOP handling... it states, "Though it is preferred to build separate RPL Instances, one in MOP 1 and one in MOP 3, this specification allows to hybrid the Storing Mode for multicast and Non-Storing Mode for unicast in the same RPL Instance, more in Section 10." This opens up a lot of possibilities and I am not sure how the hybrid mode would work. I see text in Section 5.3 that roughly handles some part by stating, "Like the 6LR, a RPL router in Storing Mode propagates the route to its parent(s) in DAO messages once and only once for each address, but it MUST retain a routing table entry for each of the children that advertised the address." "MUST retain a routing table entry for each children", is a change from the default behaviour and thus has impact on backward compatibility which is not called out in the corresponding backward compatibility section. What is the preferred mode for sending syntax fixes since I dont see this draft on github? Again, thanks for this work. Best Regards, Rahul
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
